It is desirable for the production of a medical implant or implantation aid to have as high as possible a degree of automation for high efficiency and yet to achieve as good an alignment as possible with the individual circumstances of the anatomy of the respective patient, which a priori creates an obstacle to a complete automation of production. The desire for a patient-specific anatomical alignment applies in such scenarios to such different implants as bone implants, a disk replacement or cartilage structures for plastic or reconstructive surgery.
Here, a detailed patient-specific alignment of the implant with surrounding tissue structures can prevent an inadequate integration of the implant into the tissue and consequently wear of the implant due to stresses resulting therefrom. Likewise, undesirable repercussions caused by the implant on the tissue structures participating in the interaction can be reduced, which helps to prevent inflammation, abrasion, concretion and physical wear reactions resulting from the implant.
A method is known from DE 10 2006 047 054 A1 by which implant mounts for the jaw region can be produced in a patient-individual manner. Here, a patient data set is first acquired from three-dimensional images from the affected jaw section and planning of the implant mount is carried out on the basis of the patient data set. The planning is subsequently converted into a planning data set, which is transmitted to a computer-controlled production method, a 3D-printing process, for example, for final production of the implant mount.
Such patient-specific production of a medical implant or of a comparable medical object by way of a patient data set from three-dimensional image data is first complex because a separate planning process needs to be carried out for each object that is to be produced on the basis of the image data. In addition to this, it is only the image data that is available for planning the object and usually not any further medical information. However, specifically for implants, spatial resolution alone of the body region in which the implant is to be inserted, without additional medical data relating to a healing process etc., for example, is often not sufficiently conclusive for a complete integration of the implant and a positive progression in the healing of the patient. Here, intensive aftercare may lead to further costs for the physician carrying out the follow-up treatment.